Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Left revokes President Obama's liberal card

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
(post by GrantedBail removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   

GrantedBail
reply to post by xuenchen
 


POST REMOVED BY STAFF


Sorry.

I see my darkest suspicions have proven to be correct.

Can we start the debate now ? Whatever it is.

Go back to the Politico story and pick a subject.

There's plenty there for ya.

edit on Fri Sep 13 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Politico is a little too right leaning for me. How about OPED or ANTIWAR.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 





Go back to the Politico story and pick a subject.


You're the one that made your thread all about your bigoted opinion if the Left instead of the article you linked.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I wish we could get a debate (debate forum) between a liberal and conservative.

It'd be fun!



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


Alright. Here's a list from wiki.

Start here .....

Tell me what's wrong this time.



United States –

Democratic Party
Green Party
Justice Party (United States)
Socialist Labor Party of America
Socialist Party USA
Peace and Freedom Party
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Socialist Equality Party
Working Families Party
Freedom Socialist Party
Labor Party
Socialist Action
Socialist Alternative
Socialist Workers Party
World Socialist Party of the United States

Left-wing political parties



Anything missing other than the Communist Party USA



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74



You're the one that made your thread all about your bigoted opinion if the Left instead of the article you linked.

 


Then by all means, please make a sensible rebuttal.

Until then, my opinions stand.

Please change my mind.

{ note: "bigoted" is your word, not mine }



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


What a bunch of garbage. You think progressives are card carriers of some kind of group or coalition. We are intelligent people with ideals and morals and beliefs. I certainly do not clamp on to someones platform irrespective of the ideals I hold dear. You are so simple minded. And on top of that, I don't think you have really thought this thing through. You have been sucked in by corporate sponsored propaganda so that you can fulfill their objectives. It is not very bright to allow others to use you to espouse policies that are detrimental to you and other human beings. I feel sorry for you.
edit on 13-9-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-9-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-9-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   

GrantedBail
reply to post by beezzer
 

Well, I don't know what is so funny. He isn't left at all. He throws out some red meat to his constituency once in a while to cement his "progressive" bonafides. But he is nothing but a fascist banker loving war mongering ahole. And I don't think anyone missed that.

See now this is the sort of thing I think libertarian constitutionalists need to learn from.

She's not wrong about the cronyism, indeed there are many issues that are cross ideology in the sense that we all hate them. It is just a question of what replaces them, if anything.

We are always complaining about our rights being taken away and all we can come up with is to ask for some of them back. This is not working and it is flawed as a strategy.

The left has a better strategy, in many ways it is more 'free market capitalist' in it's negotiation style. Why ask for what you want when you can demand it all.

We need to demand anarcho-capitalism and then negotiate from there and ultimately settle for our constitutional republic. This is the general idea of my anarchy threads of late. I used to dismiss anarchy as hogwash but, I have been reading a lot of Mises and Rothbard and it isn't chaos at all. I am embarrassed that it took me this long to come to that conclusion.

The main issue with the term is that it was stolen by the 1920's anti-capitalist anarchists and is still associated with the black ski mask euro crowd. Both of which present no threat to a true anarcho-capitalism, their ideology will simply be proven wrong and trade will continue as it always has. Some even say we can thank them later for helping to save us all from statism.
edit on 14-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   

left revokes President Obama's liberal card

He's still a far left Marx-hugging racist liberal. It's just that he's really incompetent.
(no, not all leftwingers are marx-hugging racist liberals. But he is)
What should be revoked is his college degree. Oh .. and his Nobel Peace Prize.
edit on 9/14/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The left calls me a right winger because I believe in a strong military, I'm against illegal immigration, I favor lower taxes and less 'nanny state' gov' intrusion, I recognize the threat of radical Islam, and I'm against abortion.

The right calls me a liberal because I believe in marriage equality, I'm against the death penalty in most cases, I am a strong believer in a SECULAR government, I adopted a 'child of color', and I think prostitution and certain illegal drugs should be legalized, regulated and taxed.

So I hear ya' ....



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Perhaps if people are going to cling to this mantra that Obama is a Marxist, they should define Marxism and then explain how Obama fits the definition. I'll define Marxism and then explain how Obama doesn't fit the definition.

Marxism is two things at it's core. It's an ideology and it's an economic theory.

The ideology of Marxism has to do with the belief that there should be no classes. If there are classes there will always be a dominant class waging class warfare on the lower classes.

The Marxist economic theory is that labor needs to be on equal footing with owners, achieving this will abolish both class and poverty.

Obama is not a Marxist by default. Studying Marxism in college and praising it (if he ever did so) does not a Marxist make. Unions have come under the heaviest attack since their inception in this country during his Presidency, he has been silent on the issue. Banks and Corporations have continued their power climb during his Presidency while the individual worker's power has continued to decrease. The undeniable crimes committed by the financial district during the Clinton, GW Bush and now Obama administrations have gone completely unaddressed by Obama's Department of Justice, a major indication that he favors the elite class.
edit on 14-9-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 





The main issue with the term is that it was stolen by the 1920's anti-capitalist anarchists and is still associated with the black ski mask euro crowd.


It's quite the other way around. It's okay though Leftists don't mind sharing.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

I mean in popular understanding in America, what Hoover talked about and sought to destroy with the FBI. That is anarcho-syndicalism. Etymologically speaking, anarchy goes back to the 16th century or even back to Athens.

Literarily, anarcho-capitalism goes back to Burke and sympathetic individualists throughout our countries history.

I am very interested in talking about this, I am certainly hoping to learn more about how others view the subject.

It merits a deeper discussion. Thanks!




posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   

greencmp
reply to post by Kali74
 

I mean in popular understanding in America, what Hoover talked about and sought to destroy with the FBI. That is anarcho-syndicalism. Etymologically speaking, anarchy goes back to the 16th century or even back to Athens.

Literarily, anarcho-capitalism goes back to Burke and sympathetic individualists throughout our countries history.

I am very interested in talking about this, I am certainly hoping to learn more about how others view the subject.

It merits a deeper discussion. Thanks!



One could argue that anarchism is the natural state of humanity and therefore dates back to when we separated from the rest of the primates. It certainly predates capitalism, even in the US.

Popular understanding in America is completely wrong and that is because liberalism and conservatism subverted, co-opted, convoluted and suppressed it beyond recognition. That is simply because anarchism is anti-authoritarian, and you can't have power, either governmental power or economic power, without authority.

So what exactly do you want to discuss? The history of Anarchism in the US or overall?



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



One could argue that anarchism is the natural state of humanity and therefore dates back to when we separated from the rest of the primates. It certainly predates capitalism, even in the US.

Popular understanding in America is completely wrong and that is because liberalism and conservatism subverted, co-opted, convoluted and suppressed it beyond recognition. That is simply because anarchism is anti-authoritarian, and you can't have power, either governmental power or economic power, without authority.

So what exactly do you want to discuss? The history of Anarchism in the US or overall?

That's good right there, we are already discussing this!


I see your point but, I do mean in the context of society. Humans acting in their own interests and through the combined efforts of each, achieving positive results that could not have come about through planned action.

True capitalism as opposed to mercantilism (what most would call corporatism these days) which may be a good topic for a thread as well.

I have always regarded authoritarianism as a measure of the threshold at which the state is willing to exert violence to enforce laws. It is ideologically independent and universally abhorred by free thinkers (I hope).

Whenever I hear someone saying that those people should be stopped from doing those things, I always ask "are you willing to use violence to coerce them to your will?" In follow up the clarification becomes, should the state use violence to achieve that goal?

Bloomberg is a great example of how shallow thinkers allow these overreaches without considering the implications at all. Should our government use violence to stop people from drinking soda, smoking cigarettes or parking their cars in an unattractive or inconvenient manner?
edit on 14-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 




I see your point but, I do mean in the context of society.


Our current society here in the US? If so, we don't have any kind of anarchism represented in our society.



Humans acting in their own interests and through the combined efforts of each, achieving positive results that could not have come about through planned action.


Increasingly hard to do with the authority corporations wield, the subversion of 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments enabled by militarization of police, and fear of the NDAA.



True capitalism as opposed to mercantilism (what most would call corporatism these days) which may be a good topic for a thread as well.


There's capitalism and then there's free markets, most people suppose they are one in the same. I as well as most Leftists disagree. I feel that cronyism/corporatism/mercantilism are all inevitable results of capitalism vs free markets that can only truly be achieved if labor is allowed entry as a marketable item.



I have always regarded authoritarianism as a measure of the threshold at which the state is willing to exert violence to enforce laws. It is ideologically independent and universally abhorred by free thinkers (I hope).


Define violence. Violence can be physical or can be punitive (fines, arrests, jail time, court fees etc). Punitive can be considered violent because it has damaging financial results on those who struggle financially. Having to pay fines, bail and court fees can mean a person doesn't eat as well as they normally would or can't get to work etc.



Bloomberg is a great example of how shallow thinkers allow these overreaches without considering the implications at all.


Totally agree, I think dude has a bit of a Napoleon complex goin on.



Should our government use violence to stop people from drinking soda,


No and no one is trying to... the soda companies wield too much power for that. So in that vein I have to ask is Bloomberg a tiny tyrant concerned about New Yorkers waistlines? Or is he a sellout to soda corporations that would rather sell two 1 liter bottles at 1.99 each than one 2 liter bottle for 2.19?

As far as smoking and parking go, those things do affect other people so if we're going to insist on the type of society we currently have, some pretty basic rules do need to apply.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

So, basically, you are not an anarchist at all. If you want a government to do anything for you, that kind of precludes the definition.

Also, itemized lists are fine for articles and literary forensics I suppose but, I was looking forward to a 'discussion' rather than an academic dissection of the term.

Have I misunderstood your position on this?

-puzzled (emoticircles just aren't working here)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

greencmp
reply to post by Kali74
 

So, basically, you are not an anarchist at all. If you want a government to do anything for you, that kind of precludes the definition.

Also, itemized lists are fine for articles and literary forensics I suppose but, I was looking forward to a 'discussion' rather than an academic dissection of the term.

Have I misunderstood your position on this?

-puzzled (emoticircles just aren't working here)


What exactly did I say I wanted government to do for me?

I don't exactly understand what it is you are wanting to discuss so I'm dissecting in an effort to address what I think you are asking.

Yes, I think you have misunderstood my position.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join